Template:Did you know nominations/Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America[edit]

The Ideal Scout, a statue by R. Tait McKenzie in front of the Bruce S. Marks Scout Resource Center in the Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia


Marks Scout Center


The Ideal Scout, a statue by R. Tait McKenzie in front of the Bruce S. Marks Scout Resource Center in the Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia

  • ... that the majority of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America have gone through thousands of name changes, merges, splits and re-creations since the establishment of the organization in 1910?

Created/expanded by Evrik (talk), Gadget850 (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 21:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

  • The hook needs to include a link to the article. Chris857 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed --evrik (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg The hook is in order now, but the article is full of "citation needed" tags. Per DYK rules, there should be at least one citation per paragraph, and no close paraphrasing of the source. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed --evrik (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
1. Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced. But the article reads like it was first written and then sources were added to it – and many of these sources don't say what the article says (see below). Moreover, some of the writing is very casual and unencyclopedic (e.g. "In 1959, the addition of Hawaii and Alaska as states threw off the numbering system"; "That last thing didn't sit well with lots of "Troop 1s" and others with low numbers"). The "casual" writing all seems to be sourced to footnote 5, which is some kind of private blog that doesn't qualify as a reliable source and should be deleted. (Moreover, none of the information cited to that blog even appears on the linked page, but that's another story.)
As I perused the article to check for close paraphrasing, I came across many inconsistencies in the sourcing:
2. Lead: I don't see the information about Western, Central, Southern and Northeast (shouldn't it be Northeastern?) councils in footnore 1.
3. Organization subhead: I don't see anything about the Key 3 idea in the footnote 1. Also, the information at the end of the second paragraph and beginning of the third paragraph really needs to be sourced. Footnote 5 is not a reliable source and should be replaced with something that is. I don't see the information being cited in footnote 6.
4. History subhead: In the third paragraph, I don't see the information being cited in footnote 8. In the fifth paragraph, I don't see the information being cited in footnote 9, nor the source for the term in quotes, "numbering/naming problem".
5. Unique councils subhead: In the first paragraph, first sentence: If it's unique, it needs a reference saying that. In the second sentence, I don't see the information being cited in footnote 13. In the second paragraph, I don't see the information being cited in footnore 14.
6. Overseas areas subhead: In the first paragraph, I don't see the information being cited in footnore 15 (p.s. the first link is dead). The second paragraph needs a citation.
7. Defunct councils subhead: Footnote 16 is not opening for me.
1. Fixed - The history section has been the most problematic portion of the piece. It has been continually updated and revamped. It has been rewritten and tightened up so most of the issues that you noted have been addressed, especially, the casual writing. I’ll address footnote five in point three.
2. Fixed - The footnote talks about the organization. Each Region has its own wikilink. It is Northeast.
3. Fixed - I adjusted the footnotes, you should now see the key 3 information in the footnote. I adjusted the footnotes so "the information at the end of the second paragraph and beginning of the third paragraph" are sourced. I don't understand what you don't see in footnote 6. Footnote 5 is now fixed
4. "BSA records note that more than 100 local councils were formed in 1931 alone" adjusted the wording. The source has the data. It can also be found in this chart. Paragraph 5 has been rewritten and the citations adjusted.
5. Fixed
6. Fixed
7. The book cited is an old version of the current book. Someone digitized it and put it on angelfire. Sometimes they have bandwith issues. I will remove the link. Also, check out this page for more context User:Gadget850/List of defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America --evrik (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing up the referencing and tightening up the language. It does read a lot better. It is still hard for me to verify the information in the article based on the sources. I don't see the information that you're citing in various places in footnote 11. All I see is a menu. Perhaps you could cite the actual page that relates this information, even if you have to cite different pages in the footnotes. Also, the information being cited to footnote 18 doesn't appear in that source. I added a few "citation needed" tags to point out a few more places where citations are in order. One last thing: Could you add the publisher's name to footnote 17? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay ... I made most of the changes you suggested. I also changed the reference link so I could get the specific documents you requested. --evrik (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Thank you. The referencing is fine now for DYK, but if you decide to nominate the article for GA, you will probably be asked to source every statement. No close paraphrasing seen in sources. The image is public domain but it isn't really viewable in a small format. Hook ref AGF. It is my understanding that the nominator has less than 5 DYKs, so no QPQ required. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I added a couple of alternate photos. BTW, I can't speak for Gadget, but I have sixteen DYKs. --evrik (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Then please review another article before this one passes. Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How do I record that? --evrik (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your question. Click on T:TDYK and choose an article that has not yet been approved. The directions for reviewing articles are found in Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide. After you're finished, let me know here which article you reviewed. Best, Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Yes, you did. Hopefully you'll follow up when the nominator responds to you, but just doing the initial review qualifies as a QPQ. Regarding the image for this hook, it doesn't really refer to local councils, but shows a statue of a Boy Scout. I suggest leaving out the image, because this hook is likely to qualify for the last slot in the queue, which is usually wider read. Let's call it a wrap! Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)